Posted by Johan on 13/5/2008, 15:38:47, in reply to "Re: Renunciation of rights"
164.140.159.143
We have had the actual situation of the first in line of succession writing to the monarch that he no longer considers himself an heir.
Yet when the sovereign died the government of the day (with constitutional expertise as the new constitution was hardly a year old) concluded that his letter didn't have any constitutional consequences. Willem III could of course imediately have abdicated and as that was seen as undesirable. It was expected that Willem III would only reign 9 years to abdicate for his son as he became 18. Though as the years passed it became clear the reluctant king didn't intend to abdicate at all.
So in the Dutch case precedent has made it clear that an heir cannot renounce throne rights.
--Previous Message--
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I have never heard anyone with the slightest
: bit of constitutional knowledge state that a
: Dutch heir can renounce his rights.
:
: Hmm. One can still have considerable (or
: some) constitutional knowledge and still
: question the common interpretation. As said
: earlier, I am not saying that the common
: interpretation is not correct, just finding
: it interesting that the Dutch and Norwegian
: constitutions, which don't mention the
: possibility of renunciation, still are (or
: can be said to be) viewed differently. Of
: course two very different countries with
: different constitutional history and
: practice, although similarities can be
: found. As far as I know (I haven't looked
: into it yet) only T.H. Aschehoug says it is
: possible for a Norwegian king or dynast to
: abdicate/renounce, but the history backs him
: up, although the circumstances in 1814 and
: 1905 were extraordinary.
:
: As stated there are ways to get out of the
: line of succession, just not single
: handedly.
: Any book on the constitution will explain
: the articles concerning the succession as
: something one cannot renounce.
:
: Examples?
:
: DTH
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread